United forced to suspend JFK service due to expiration/lack of slots, end of Oct 2022
Sep 7, 2022, 11:17 am
#31
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,656
It looks like you have been corrected in actual overall market share that the big 3 have. Much like some markets, it’s not reasonable that one airline control every hub. What are you hoping for that benefits the consumer?
Sep 7, 2022, 11:24 am
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: AS 75K, DL Silver, UA Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Platinum + LT Gold
Posts: 10,502
Sep 7, 2022, 11:57 am
#33
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC (LGA, JFK), CT
Programs: Delta Platinum, American Gold, JetBlue Mosaic 4, Marriott Platinum, Hyatt Explorist, Hilton Diamond,
Posts: 4,895
PANYNJ disagrees, with UA and DL in a tie for the area air travel, B6 #3 and AA a distance #4
AA's retreat from the NYC area has been widely written about.
AA's retreat from the NYC area has been widely written about.
Sep 7, 2022, 12:16 pm
#34
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: UA Premier Platinum, DL Platinum
Posts: 597
If UA dumps JFK in a pout, maybe they could move one of those 757s to DCA and run a proper DCA-SFO premium service, like Delta does into LAX.
I know that might require them to cut one of their three 6-7 PM DCA-EWR CR550 flights that are perpetually grossly delayed, but still.
I know that might require them to cut one of their three 6-7 PM DCA-EWR CR550 flights that are perpetually grossly delayed, but still.
Sep 7, 2022, 12:17 pm
#35
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.995MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,854
There are many UA flyers who would like more JFK service but that ship may have sailed.
UA's LGA position, as a UA non hub, with service to all but UA's west coast hubs is make like any other major for non-hubs. Especially considering the frequency of some routes.
Sep 7, 2022, 12:56 pm
#37
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
I think people are missing the boat on this. The phrase "negotiating in the media" comes to mind.
First, UA only was able to re-enter JFK because of slot exemptions occasioned by the pandemic; they never were able to buy or were awarded additional permanent slots. They simply used slots that nominally belong to another carrier that was able to suspend flying as a consequence of the waivers. The current slot exemption is through 10/29/22, the IATA northern summer season. If the FAA does not extend slot waivers another season (all indications are they will not) then United will lose the ability to use those slots unless it contracts with the slotholder.
Second, UA clearly has not been able to source its own slots since resuming JFK service. There has been no incentive for any airline to unload slot holdings at JFK to date, since the exemption has been in place. None of the incumbent carriers with meaningful slot portfolios have been in such dire straits that they needed to sell JFK slots to raise cash. Other carriers that have temporarily suspended service due to the exemption are likely to restart service to preserve their slots. As an aside, I would expect a number of slots to shake loose post-10/29 once the exemption ends and airlines are once again held to usage thresholds to retain slots (e.g., Aeroflot, Norwegian, Interjet, some Chinese carriers), which United should have a chance to secure. It's also unclear which dormant slots United has been using for its 4 daily arrival/departure pairs.
Third, many industry observers expect the DOJ to reach a pre-trial settlement with AA/B6, and it is possible that a settlement will involve a divestiture of assets, including BOS gates, JFK slots/gates and LGA slots/gates. This would allow AA/B6 to preserve their NEA, which it seems extraordinarily committed to. My impression is that AA is willing to give up a great deal to ensure the NEA survives DOJ scrutiny, since without it, their JFK position is in serious jeopardy of enormous losses going forward, some of which would be unavoidable in light of other obligations, including its lease with the PANYNJ and JV with BA. With a September 27 trial date approaching, those discussions are probably underway. United has an interest in making a public argument that the AA/B6 NEA is anticompetitive, with JFK-LAX as an example, and positioning itself as a carrier that would benefit from additional slots at JFK to more effectively compete with AA/B6. The irony here is delicious, of course, but, as the saying goes, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Fourth, I don't read this at all to be an indication that United is struggling at JFK. Well, they probably are, at least as compared to EWR, but that's beside the point. Perhaps it's better to say that United isn't threatening to pull out of JFK because it is struggling. The argument in favor of keeping JFK service from LAX/SFO in 2015 was chiefly that high value (including longtime managed United corporate contract) traffic originating at West Coast points of sale inbound to New York exhibited a clear preference for JFK over EWR. Once UA obtained the use of JFK slots and restarted LAX/SFO service a year into the pandemic, with 767s, it was obvious that P&L on the individual JFK segments didn't matter. United believes it needs to be in the market. It isn't going to pull out of JFK unless it has absolutely no other choice... meaning, no slots. To obtain them, and "restore competitive balance"
, it is either asking the FAA to create more slots, or take them from the "anti-competitive" AA/B6 agreement.
No doubt a lot of horse trading is going on behind the scenes here. It will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks.
One more note: it is true that UA traded its JFK slots to Delta in return for additional EWR slots in 2015. The next year, the FAA brought EWR down to a Level 2 airport, so those EWR slots United "traded for" from Delta went away. But, United still technically holds 12 slot pairs, leased to Delta. At some point that lease will be up for renewal, an option United may decline if it is able to, but for now those slots are basically untouchable for United operations.
First, UA only was able to re-enter JFK because of slot exemptions occasioned by the pandemic; they never were able to buy or were awarded additional permanent slots. They simply used slots that nominally belong to another carrier that was able to suspend flying as a consequence of the waivers. The current slot exemption is through 10/29/22, the IATA northern summer season. If the FAA does not extend slot waivers another season (all indications are they will not) then United will lose the ability to use those slots unless it contracts with the slotholder.
Second, UA clearly has not been able to source its own slots since resuming JFK service. There has been no incentive for any airline to unload slot holdings at JFK to date, since the exemption has been in place. None of the incumbent carriers with meaningful slot portfolios have been in such dire straits that they needed to sell JFK slots to raise cash. Other carriers that have temporarily suspended service due to the exemption are likely to restart service to preserve their slots. As an aside, I would expect a number of slots to shake loose post-10/29 once the exemption ends and airlines are once again held to usage thresholds to retain slots (e.g., Aeroflot, Norwegian, Interjet, some Chinese carriers), which United should have a chance to secure. It's also unclear which dormant slots United has been using for its 4 daily arrival/departure pairs.
Third, many industry observers expect the DOJ to reach a pre-trial settlement with AA/B6, and it is possible that a settlement will involve a divestiture of assets, including BOS gates, JFK slots/gates and LGA slots/gates. This would allow AA/B6 to preserve their NEA, which it seems extraordinarily committed to. My impression is that AA is willing to give up a great deal to ensure the NEA survives DOJ scrutiny, since without it, their JFK position is in serious jeopardy of enormous losses going forward, some of which would be unavoidable in light of other obligations, including its lease with the PANYNJ and JV with BA. With a September 27 trial date approaching, those discussions are probably underway. United has an interest in making a public argument that the AA/B6 NEA is anticompetitive, with JFK-LAX as an example, and positioning itself as a carrier that would benefit from additional slots at JFK to more effectively compete with AA/B6. The irony here is delicious, of course, but, as the saying goes, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Fourth, I don't read this at all to be an indication that United is struggling at JFK. Well, they probably are, at least as compared to EWR, but that's beside the point. Perhaps it's better to say that United isn't threatening to pull out of JFK because it is struggling. The argument in favor of keeping JFK service from LAX/SFO in 2015 was chiefly that high value (including longtime managed United corporate contract) traffic originating at West Coast points of sale inbound to New York exhibited a clear preference for JFK over EWR. Once UA obtained the use of JFK slots and restarted LAX/SFO service a year into the pandemic, with 767s, it was obvious that P&L on the individual JFK segments didn't matter. United believes it needs to be in the market. It isn't going to pull out of JFK unless it has absolutely no other choice... meaning, no slots. To obtain them, and "restore competitive balance"
, it is either asking the FAA to create more slots, or take them from the "anti-competitive" AA/B6 agreement.No doubt a lot of horse trading is going on behind the scenes here. It will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks.
One more note: it is true that UA traded its JFK slots to Delta in return for additional EWR slots in 2015. The next year, the FAA brought EWR down to a Level 2 airport, so those EWR slots United "traded for" from Delta went away. But, United still technically holds 12 slot pairs, leased to Delta. At some point that lease will be up for renewal, an option United may decline if it is able to, but for now those slots are basically untouchable for United operations.
Last edited by EWR764; Sep 7, 2022 at 1:03 pm
Sep 7, 2022, 1:21 pm
#38
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 4,217
As for JFK, I don’t get the fascination with it (EWR and LGA serve me just fine), but I understand United’s side of it too
Sep 7, 2022, 1:27 pm
#39
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 4,125
UA’s presence at JFK with LAX/SFO service supports all of their business at LGA. Having that n/s option makes them more credible with frequent flyers who routinely use LGA but won’t/can’t go over to New Jersey for a flight.
Sep 7, 2022, 1:31 pm
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
I think people are missing the boat on this. The phrase "negotiating in the media" comes to mind.
First, UA only was able to re-enter JFK because of slot exemptions occasioned by the pandemic; they never were able to buy or were awarded additional permanent slots. They simply used slots that nominally belong to another carrier that was able to suspend flying as a consequence of the waivers. The current slot exemption is through 10/29/22, the IATA northern summer season. If the FAA does not extend slot waivers another season (all indications are they will not) then United will lose the ability to use those slots unless it contracts with the slotholder.
Second, UA clearly has not been able to source its own slots since resuming JFK service. There has been no incentive for any airline to unload slot holdings at JFK to date, since the exemption has been in place. None of the incumbent carriers with meaningful slot portfolios have been in such dire straits that they needed to sell JFK slots to raise cash. Other carriers that have temporarily suspended service due to the exemption are likely to restart service to preserve their slots. As an aside, I would expect a number of slots to shake loose post-10/29 once the exemption ends and airlines are once again held to usage thresholds to retain slots (e.g., Aeroflot, Norwegian, Interjet, some Chinese carriers), which United should have a chance to secure. It's also unclear which dormant slots United has been using for its 4 daily arrival/departure pairs.
Third, many industry observers expect the DOJ to reach a pre-trial settlement with AA/B6, and it is possible that a settlement will involve a divestiture of assets, including BOS gates, JFK slots/gates and LGA slots/gates. This would allow AA/B6 to preserve their NEA, which it seems extraordinarily committed to. My impression is that AA is willing to give up a great deal to ensure the NEA survives DOJ scrutiny, since without it, their JFK position is in serious jeopardy of enormous losses going forward, some of which would be unavoidable in light of other obligations, including its lease with the PANYNJ and JV with BA. With a September 27 trial date approaching, those discussions are probably underway. United has an interest in making a public argument that the AA/B6 NEA is anticompetitive, with JFK-LAX as an example, and positioning itself as a carrier that would benefit from additional slots at JFK to more effectively compete with AA/B6. The irony here is delicious, of course, but, as the saying goes, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Fourth, I don't read this at all to be an indication that United is struggling at JFK. Well, they probably are, at least as compared to EWR, but that's beside the point. Perhaps it's better to say that United isn't threatening to pull out of JFK because it is struggling. The argument in favor of keeping JFK service from LAX/SFO in 2015 was chiefly that high value (including longtime managed United corporate contract) traffic originating at West Coast points of sale inbound to New York exhibited a clear preference for JFK over EWR. Once UA obtained the use of JFK slots and restarted LAX/SFO service a year into the pandemic, with 767s, it was obvious that P&L on the individual JFK segments didn't matter. United believes it needs to be in the market. It isn't going to pull out of JFK unless it has absolutely no other choice... meaning, no slots. To obtain them, and "restore competitive balance", it is either asking the FAA to create more slots, or take them from the "anti-competitive" AA/B6 agreement.
No doubt a lot of horse trading is going on behind the scenes here. It will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks.
One more note: it is true that UA traded its JFK slots to Delta in return for additional EWR slots in 2015. The next year, the FAA brought EWR down to a Level 2 airport, so those EWR slots United "traded for" from Delta went away. But, United still technically holds 12 slot pairs, leased to Delta. At some point that lease will be up for renewal, an option United may decline if it is able to, but for now those slots are basically untouchable for United operations.
First, UA only was able to re-enter JFK because of slot exemptions occasioned by the pandemic; they never were able to buy or were awarded additional permanent slots. They simply used slots that nominally belong to another carrier that was able to suspend flying as a consequence of the waivers. The current slot exemption is through 10/29/22, the IATA northern summer season. If the FAA does not extend slot waivers another season (all indications are they will not) then United will lose the ability to use those slots unless it contracts with the slotholder.
Second, UA clearly has not been able to source its own slots since resuming JFK service. There has been no incentive for any airline to unload slot holdings at JFK to date, since the exemption has been in place. None of the incumbent carriers with meaningful slot portfolios have been in such dire straits that they needed to sell JFK slots to raise cash. Other carriers that have temporarily suspended service due to the exemption are likely to restart service to preserve their slots. As an aside, I would expect a number of slots to shake loose post-10/29 once the exemption ends and airlines are once again held to usage thresholds to retain slots (e.g., Aeroflot, Norwegian, Interjet, some Chinese carriers), which United should have a chance to secure. It's also unclear which dormant slots United has been using for its 4 daily arrival/departure pairs.
Third, many industry observers expect the DOJ to reach a pre-trial settlement with AA/B6, and it is possible that a settlement will involve a divestiture of assets, including BOS gates, JFK slots/gates and LGA slots/gates. This would allow AA/B6 to preserve their NEA, which it seems extraordinarily committed to. My impression is that AA is willing to give up a great deal to ensure the NEA survives DOJ scrutiny, since without it, their JFK position is in serious jeopardy of enormous losses going forward, some of which would be unavoidable in light of other obligations, including its lease with the PANYNJ and JV with BA. With a September 27 trial date approaching, those discussions are probably underway. United has an interest in making a public argument that the AA/B6 NEA is anticompetitive, with JFK-LAX as an example, and positioning itself as a carrier that would benefit from additional slots at JFK to more effectively compete with AA/B6. The irony here is delicious, of course, but, as the saying goes, "don't hate the player, hate the game."
Fourth, I don't read this at all to be an indication that United is struggling at JFK. Well, they probably are, at least as compared to EWR, but that's beside the point. Perhaps it's better to say that United isn't threatening to pull out of JFK because it is struggling. The argument in favor of keeping JFK service from LAX/SFO in 2015 was chiefly that high value (including longtime managed United corporate contract) traffic originating at West Coast points of sale inbound to New York exhibited a clear preference for JFK over EWR. Once UA obtained the use of JFK slots and restarted LAX/SFO service a year into the pandemic, with 767s, it was obvious that P&L on the individual JFK segments didn't matter. United believes it needs to be in the market. It isn't going to pull out of JFK unless it has absolutely no other choice... meaning, no slots. To obtain them, and "restore competitive balance"
, it is either asking the FAA to create more slots, or take them from the "anti-competitive" AA/B6 agreement.No doubt a lot of horse trading is going on behind the scenes here. It will be interesting to watch over the next few weeks.
One more note: it is true that UA traded its JFK slots to Delta in return for additional EWR slots in 2015. The next year, the FAA brought EWR down to a Level 2 airport, so those EWR slots United "traded for" from Delta went away. But, United still technically holds 12 slot pairs, leased to Delta. At some point that lease will be up for renewal, an option United may decline if it is able to, but for now those slots are basically untouchable for United operations.
I think it'd be good, given the limited schedule even if they went for if UA were to LH's terminal so they can leverage the lounge facilities. I don't know how you can setup an operation for your high yield traffic and not have a usable lounge .
Sep 7, 2022, 1:46 pm
#41
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
JetBlue Mint customers seem content without lounge access... much better inflight product, for sure, but the lack of a lounge is glaring.
Sep 7, 2022, 2:21 pm
#42
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: B6 Mosaic, Bonvoy LT Titanium (x SPG LT), IHG Spire, UA Silver
Posts: 5,848
For how many more weeks/months? The lease holder for T-7 is BA and they are leaving before the end of 2022 and the terminal will be demolished leaving UA/AS homeless in the not too distant future anyway. Not having UA means one less headache for the airport as construction of T1 and T6 and the demolition of T-7 moves forward.
Sep 7, 2022, 2:30 pm
#43
Join Date: May 2016
Location: NYC
Posts: 265
I've been considering the JFK-SFO route that UA introduced recently, but Delta is a much better option since you can sit in a 2-3-2 if you don't get upgraded. I really can't go back to flying 3-3 for domestic coast-to-coast anymore. Alaska is also a decent option as there are more flights per day from JFK, but they also only use 3-3. And ofc the lounge options are way better in T4 especially if you have Amex Plat.
Sep 7, 2022, 2:57 pm
#44
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
For how many more weeks/months? The lease holder for T-7 is BA and they are leaving before the end of 2022 and the terminal will be demolished leaving UA/AS homeless in the not too distant future anyway. Not having UA means one less headache for the airport as construction of T1 and T6 and the demolition of T-7 moves forward.
I wonder if AS would move to T8 with AA?
Sep 7, 2022, 2:59 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: AS 75K, DL Silver, UA Platinum, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Platinum + LT Gold
Posts: 10,502
good info about what's actually going on...
I think it'd be good, given the limited schedule even if they went for if UA were to LH's terminal so they can leverage the lounge facilities. I don't know how you can setup an operation for your high yield traffic and not have a usable lounge .
I think it'd be good, given the limited schedule even if they went for if UA were to LH's terminal so they can leverage the lounge facilities. I don't know how you can setup an operation for your high yield traffic and not have a usable lounge .
It would only make sense for all of the T7 OW carriers to move to T8. Then that would leave UA, LO, NH. FI. Am I forgetting anyone else?
Last edited by Repooc17; Sep 7, 2022 at 3:04 pm